i highly doubt it - i already am 35 hours in it and I am only exploring Nekataka. I like to really take my time with those games and read every single think I find. Helps me concentrate better in other things I do, strangely enough..

I am below level 10 so for me it is a challenge. Others in this thread say it gets easier from there. In any case it at least forces me to make choices as to what abilities to use and how to place my party and who to attack first. Veteran started to be like "left-click to attack and watch what happens till you win"

No, I only got time to photograph Ursa and Adraga last year. I like to revisit them and find intimate details, you know? This year I hope to cocentrate more on Ursa and whatever else I can find as long as it is not too far.

I don't know what ND 100 refers to, but the main approach is to look at how many f-stops they mean. Standard is 6, 10 and 15 i think. 6-f stops will work great for all scenes that are not hit by direct sunlight. f-10 will work nice for direct sunlight as well, but will add way too much darkness in shadow which will require anywhere between 30 seconds and 10 minutes of exposure.

remember that you can get shots like these without such filters, as long as you chose the lowest possible ISO speed, shoot at f22 aperture, and if you have a polarizing filter it will also add a slight darkening that may help out.

I got that as well and I was about to hop on it because with my steam wallet it would have been free, but I looked at the reviews and they were extremely negative for the game. My understanding is that it's a microtransaction hell.

I love the gameplay. Not sure with the...atmosphere I guess you could say? The atmosphere in Rage 1 always felt pretty comically dark in some areas and others were pretty much just desolately dark and I enjoyed that about Rage. This doesn't seem to have the same atmosphere Rage 1 had but other than that the gameplay itself looks pretty awesome, plus it's open world, but hopefully a little more open world than Rage 1 was. Rage 1 was "technically" open world but you really never had a reason to go outside the main town unless you just got a quest. It was basically just "Town, get quest, leave and go to some area you'll never go back to in the game again and complete objective, return to quest giver" and it kinda just felt linear in that sense. It would be nice to have multiple different hubs to travel to when you want and places to discover and different quests instead of returning to the exact same place over and over again.

Bat is relying on people's good will, so to speak. Most people don't care and the minority that does care to allow ads is not enough to drive a huge ad-based economy that exists today.

Bat says that you can earn by viewing ads. The amount is so minimal, that no one will care about it. This actually goes for every single blockchain project out there that says that you will earn money by doing something very simple. It is because people earn money through work, and no body is interested in turning their free time into work, especially when the amount earned is so small, you will be better off getting a very shitty job instead.

Do you really think people want to consider whether to enable BAT ads or not when they get home from a long day of work? People want to relax and watch something cool online, not spend their time viewing ads, no matter how short they may be.

The same way no one is actually interested in earning money while they watch movies, porn, play games, submit shit to social media, upvote shit on social media and so on - because the amount you earn is always going to be so insanely small that it won't ever matter.

Would love to reach some artists that are interested in a decentralised music streaming platform. It's basically Spotify without the unfair payment systems and whatnot. So if you know some artist friends that would love to feature their music on such a platform tell them to check-out PurpleThrone

Also, if you know other projects like that, definitely interested to hear about them!

Ethereum too is a bad name - I agree. It sounds very fancy and kind of hard to take seriously until you actually try to understand it.

But Purple Throne is a bad name by itself. Spotify works because it is easy to say and easy to remember, it is also a play on the word "fi" which can relate to music. It also has the word "spot" on it, which reassembles of the concept of being able to play music on the spot/on the go. You know what I mean?

Purple Throne is kind of difficult to say, there is no "cling" to it and there is also no reason to remember it. It is not catchy. Purple is not a neutral color, but the word "throne" is actually pretty bad because it is associated with power, game of thrones and is just sort of geeky, like Ethereum is. If you want to attract users and artists of the whole world, I would suggest to rethink the name first. The first time I looked at different cryptocurrencies I thought Ethereum was a nerdy sci-fi joke based on the name alone.

To put it simple: if you have to contact sys admin at work to ask them to allow you to install a music platform called "Purple Throne", wouldn't it be a bit weird? It is not a generally "user friendly" name. Seems you are involved in a project, so just giving feedback.

I'll play devil's advocate to the "there don't need to be 1000 different tokens" meme. Which also ties in to the "big businesses aren't going to buy your coin" meme.

Interoperability, cross chain communication, atomic swaps and dexes are all in their infancy, but with become better and better with time, because that's what the market wants. Couple this with improved UX, better UIs and better dApps and we are moving towards a situation where payment for a service can be spread across a large number of different token ecosystems under the hood, with the user never having to consciously go through the ordeal of buying individual tokens on an exchange.

Here's an entirely plausible example for a couple of years time. Someone wants to set up a smart contract, and goes to the market leader, EZSmartContract. They pay for an "all in one smart contract solution".

Now the smart contract that they have paid for (lets say) runs on Ethereum, has a currency translation performed by REQ, it has code audited by Quantstamp, it requires off-chain secure multi-party computation performed by Enigma, and it needs trustless data feeds provided by Chainlink. But the person using EZSmartcontract won't have to know any of this. The lump sum payment they make (to EZ) will be automatically translated into each of those tokens, using whatever is the best interoperability/cross chain service out there (who will also take a fee).

So in my opinion there can be an unlimited number of tokens/coins. Any ecosystem/network that performs a useful function can have a tokenised way to articulate and move value within it. Why? Because cross chain communication and atomic swapping will be so baked in that the user won't have to worry about moving between coins, or hunting down shitty exchanges. The software will do it.

People and businesses won't have to go on exchanges to buy your coin. They will automatically buy it when they use your protocol/utility service on the back end, and they don't even need to know that that's where their money is going. All the need to know is that whatever they are using solves a problem.

There can be as many tokens as there are useful projects, in 5 years the end user won't have to pick and choose between them, they will just use them.

Nice. But a question then: (since we are discussing the investment) - why would a token that already exists and has a price, increase in value? Like a token named "meh" which is used to run a blockchain which is all about making sure that a product comes where it says it comes from. If we are going to have a bunch of tokens for all sorts of things, and these tokens will mostly be unknown to everyone because of things like ark or req or whatnot, who is going to care to invest in those tokens to begin with?

I mean we have eth already and it is actually being used for gaming and sponsoring a bunch if ICOS and whatnot, and yet the price for eth managed to fall from 1k to almost 300, implying that it is not actually the usage of eth that affects this but the investors - since eth didn't start getting used less during that time. Now imagine the same for countless tokens which have a very limited use base - like verifying food origins on a blockchain, who is going to care about investing in that token when there are maybe 10 000 other similar tokens?

From a technological point of view that is pretty awesome. From an investor's point of view the money gains probably lie in "meta" projects which either do a lot of stuff actually making a huge demand or projects which enable stuff to happen across platforms. What do you think?

No thanks. I don't like companies using my user data without my consent. I haven't seen Spotify nor Last.fm ask for new consent regarding the GDPR law that starts on 25th of May. They will be in trouble if they don't.

I imagine last.fm is collecting a bunch of stuff already as all social media sites do. From 25th we have the right to ask what sort of info they actually gather. That will be interesting.

This was happening to me a couple days ago and was able to fix it by disconnecting/reconnecting the Spotify app in my last.fm settings under "Applications".

Unfortunately it started happening to me again a couple of hours ago and nothing I'm trying seems to be working this time. Hopefully they're looking into it.

UPDATE: My songs are still not being saved immediately after listening, but I did notice when logging in this morning that it had retroactively scrobbled some of the songs that it missed last night so fingers crossed that right now it's just a time delay issue and is still saving all the songs it's supposed to be scrobbling.